Brilliance utility, and why we preferred stellar to ethereum

We broke with the established convention and chose not to use ethereum for development. This was primarily because the transaction speed and fee for stellar is far superior to ethereum. As our token will be used to transfer information within and between exchanges – for example to create blockchain based confirmation of trader performance, or for arbitrage – we need a token which will transfer quickly and cheaply. We could not achieve satisfactory utility using an ethereum token. The role that Brilliance plays, in harmony with the Pinnacle infrastructure, will be unique in crypto.

Stellar also offers many other nice features for dev teams including off-line signing of transactions from multi signature wallets, which is necessary in order to keep investor funds completely secure. One-time or time-limited signing keys, or keys that limit withdrawal size, can also be issued. Asset contracts that are issued incorrectly can be frozen.

There are also security issues with ethereum. In fact, without the development of a tighter alternative to solidity for ethereum developers to use, we believe that stellar will become the default platform for token sales. The recent issues with Parity multi signature wallets are the latest indication that the solidity language is not yet developed enough to use securely.[1] The experience of working with stellar feels like a 2.0 version of ethereum. Ethereum is a wonderful innovation. It has great potential, but we don’t think that ethereum will fulfill that potential until a safer alternative to solidity is developed.

We chose to accept Ethereum for payment rather than Stellar, as users are still more familiar with Ethereum. Lumens is not on Coinbase, and so new users might not know how to buy it. In addition, it is listed on some exchanges as STR and others as XLM, which compounds confusion.